"Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor@foretune.co.jp>
I agree with him that this is an area of great potential concern. While I am not opposed to the principle of maintaining multiple identities on the net, the rule of netiquette should be that "multiple identities should _NEVER_ intersect."
what, pray tell, do you define as *intersection*? the very existence of the two pseudonyms on the same Cyberspace can be considered an `intersection'.
So I support "L. Detweiler"s right to be "Jim," but they ought never to support each other. His scenario is chillingly _possible_.
the scenario is chillingly *true*. And I do not support it. I condemn it.
At the same time, I think such episodes will be rare. The amount of effort needed to maintain multiple intersecting identities is quite high, and in most cases would be "uneconomic." However, in some cases, for some people, the effort might be worth it, so some thought ought to be placed into ways to detect or discourage it.
again, more Medusa-cypherpunk brainwashing. `don't worry about this. it's not a big deal. no one would be evil enough to do this. heaven forbid, don't do anything rash like invent robust identity mechanisms that would *prevent* me from continuing to exploit this weakness in the system and inherent trust of others.'
Which brings up the question: how can we, in the era of digital pseudonyms determine that two pseudos are, or are not, the same person? One possible method would be careful automated analysis of the language used by the participants in a net discussion.
hah, hah! society has already evolved many other mechanisms that have worked for centuries, and `you' promote obscure black magic. the problem is, all that stuff is just to damn mundane and oppressive. it's equivalent to Retinal Scans and a Camera on Every Corner. cypherpunks, you have no idea how much you are being brainwashed. a true Thought Crime if there ever was one. wipe wipe, slosh slosh, scrub scrub. look! sparkling white! now, to pour in the blackness...